Yes, it does make sense to pick the 'most common' interpretation of a
particular label, in the absence of a platform tag. That is part of
the work that George is doing.
Mark
—————
Πόλλ’ ἠπίστατο ἔργα, κακῶς δ’ ἠπίστατο πάντα — Ὁμήρου Μαργίτῃ
[For transliteration, see http://oss.software.ibm.com/cgi-bin/icu/tr]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yves Arrouye" <yves@realnames.com>
To: "'Mark Davis (jtcsv)'" <mark@macchiato.com>; "Nick Ing-Simmons"
<nick@ing-simmons.net>
Cc: <dankogai@dan.co.jp>; <perl-unicode@perl.org>; "SADAHIRO Tomoyuki"
<bqw10602@nifty.com>; <icu@www-124.southbury.usf.ibm.com>; "Unicode"
<unicode@unicode.org>
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 15:55
Subject: RE: ICU's uconv vs Linux iconv and UTF-8
> > It is definitely a problem to try to interpret what any given
label is
> > supposed to be. The problem is that MIME labels and others are
> > ambiguous, and are interpreted different ways on different
systems.
>
> Still, in the meantime it does make sense to have EUC-JP associated
to the
> most common interpretation of it, doesn't it? Just for the sake of
user
> satisfaction?
>
> I am curious: is there a "better name" for the EUC-JP that ICU is
using,
> that would make everybody understand which one it is? If so, we
could have
> EUC-JP for the one that the rest of the world wants.
>
> YA
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 19:14:50 EST